Criminal Appeal against conviction under Section 304 IPC for culpable homicide. Apex Court prison sentence reduced to four years while upholding other findings despite investigation defects.
Conviction upheld; sentence reduced from seven years to four years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 304(ii) IPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Bail Slip.
The Appellant/Accused namely R. Thiyagu was directed to be released on bail as per this court order dated 11.04.2012 in M.P.1/2012 in Crl.A. 210/2012.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 26.06.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
CRL.A.210 of 2012 R.Thiyagu ... Appellant Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, B5, Singanallur Police Station, Coimbatore District. in Crime No.870 of 2010 ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.133 of 2011 dated 19.01.2012, in which the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 (ii) IPC.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Vijayakumaran For Respondent : Ms.T.P.Savitha
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
J U D G M E N T
The appeal is directed as against the judgment dated 19.01.2012, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.133 of 2011. The appellant herein is the sole accused. Initially, in the trial court, during the time of framing charges, the offence under Section 302 IPC had been framed against the accused. Thereafter, after concluding the trial, the learned Principal Session Judge, Coimbatore came to the conclusion that the appellant is found guilty for the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years. Against which, now the appellant approached this Court by way of criminal appeal, prayed to set aside the convictions and sentence.
2.1. In the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, the deceased was treated as out patient. So the deceased returned to his home. However, at the night hours, he suffered from head ache and sleeplessness. Therefore, on the next day on 10.06.2006, P.W.1 took the deceased to the Ramvel Hospital. In the Ramvel hospital, the deceased took treatment for two days. Thereafter, the Doctor attached with the said hospital advised P.W.1 for taking scan and other clinical examination. Since the deceased did not recover from his illness till 13.06.2010, P.W.1 admitted the deceased, in G.R. Hospital situated at Udauampalayam. On 13.06.2010 at about 9.35 a.m., P.W.1 informed the occurrence to P.W.8-Dr.Ramanathan, that the alleged occurrence was happened on 09.06.2010 between 4.00 p.m., to 5.00 p.m. In the G.R Hospital, the deceased was treated in Intensive Care Unit. After taking scan, it was identified that the deceased sustained injury in scull as follows :
"Sub Arachnoid hemorrhage in the left sylvian fissure and temporo parietal region. Acute infarct in left middle cerebral artery and right anterior cerebral artery territory and subarachnoid hemorrhage in the left temporafrom to parietal regions”.
After giving necessary treatment, the authorities in G.R. Hospital discharged the deceased and issued discharge summary under Ex.P.6. Then only, on 15.06.2010 at about 6 p.m., since the condition of the deceased Raman become bad, P.W.1 decided to prefer a complaint to the Police. For which, she narrated the
incident to a person presented in the G.R. Hospital, who reduced the same into writing under Ex.P.1, read over and obtained signature of P.W.1. After writing the complaint, P.W.1 went to the B-5 Singanallur Police Station and lodged the complaint for initiating action against the appellant.
2.2. On receiving the complaint, P.W.11, the then Sub Inspector of Police attached with the above said Police Station on 15.06.2010 at about 18.00 hours registered the case in Crime No.870 of 2010 under Section 75(1)(c) of TNCP Act and u/s 324 and 506(ii) IPC under Ex.P.10. After registration of the case, P.W.11 took up the same for investigation. He visited the scene of occurrence on the same day at 6.45 p.m. In the presence of P.W.6, he prepared the observation mahazar under Ex.P.2. Further he prepared Rough sketch under Ex.P.11. Further more, he seized material object M.O.1-wooden log under Ex.P.3 mahazar in the presence of same witnesses. After preparation of these documents, he recorded the statement of witnesses, who witnessed the occurrence and other witnesses, who attested in the observation mahazar and other documents. After examination of witnesses, he visited G.R. Hospital, in which the deceased was admitted and found that the deceased was not in a position to give statement. Therefore, he examined P.W.1 and recorded her statement.
2.3. In continuation of the investigation on 16.06.2010 at about 8.00 a.m., P.W.11 arrested the accused near Singanallur bus stop and sent him to the judicial custody. In the mean while, on 07.07.2010 at about 1.50 p.m., death had happened to the deceased and the same was intimated to the Police Officer. On the receipt of the intimation, P.W.11 altered Section of offence as 302 IPC under Ex.P.12. Further he handed over the case records to P.W.12, the then Inspector of Police for investigation.
2.4. P.W.12, the then Inspector of Police attached with Singanallur Police Station took up the case and immediately, he went to the place in which the dead body was kept. He held inquest over the dead body of Raman in the presence of Panchayatars and prepared inquest report under Ex.P.13. After preparation of Inquest report, he gave requisition to the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital for conducting Autopsy. The said requisition is marked as Ex.P.9 and it was forwarded to the hospital authorities through P.W.9 Unnikrishnan, who is the Police constable attached with the Police Station, in which P.W.12 was working. Further, he examined P.W.1 to P.W4 and recorded their statements.
2.5. P.W.10 Dr. Jayasingh, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicines, attached with Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Raman on 08.07.2010 at 10.10 a.m. During the time of autopsy, he
found the following injuries and other identifications :-
"Nil external injuries noted on the body. Ante-mortem injuries : On dissection of scalp, skull and dura: Sub scalpal contusion in variegated in colour 12X8X4 cm noted on left fronto parietal region. Cerebra spinal fluid increased in volume with blood stain. Diffused sub dural and sub arachnoid hemorrhages noted on both cerebral hemispheres. Contusion 6X4X1cm notied on right fronto parieto termporal lobe of brain. The Medial aspect of right fronto parietal lobe found liquefied necrosed over the area of 6X4X3cm. Contusion varigated in colour 8X4cm noted on left fronto parieto temporal region, the underlying brain tissue found necrosed. OTHER FINDINGS:- -Paritoneal and pleural cavities-empty. Heart - all chambers empty, Coronaries patent. Hyoid bone-intact. Stomach contains about 75ml of yellow colour fluid no specific smell mucosa pale. Small intestine contains about 10ml of bile stained fluid. no specific smell mucosa pale. Liver, Spleen, Brain, Lungs and Kidneys - cut section pale. Urinary bladder empty."
After completion of post-morem, the inner parts of the deceased were sent for chemical examination. In the chemical examination, it was identified that there is no poisonous substance is found in the inner parts of the deceased Raman. P.W.10 the Doctor gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury and its complication. Ex.P.7 is the Post-mortem certificate and the final report issued by P.W.10 is Ex.P.8.
2.6. Subsequently, on receipt of final opinion, the investigation officer examined the Doctors who are attached with the Ramvel Hospital, G.R. Hospital and the Doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Raman and finally he concluded the investigation and laid charge sheet for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years.
in which the deceased was first treated. The non collection of materials from the Government Hospital, Coimbatore is nothing but the defect in the case of prosecution. In this regard, the lower Court clearly held based on the judgement reported in "State of U.P. Vs. Harimohan (2001) M.L.J. (Cri) 182" that
"Defective investigation, cannot be made a basis for acquitting the accused it despite defects and failures of the investigation, a case is made out against all the accused or any one of them"
Hence the above said contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable.
the falling of the deceased. Hence, there was a reasonable doubts arose that the said evidence given by D.W.2 in the chief examination is true or not.
"22. .................. minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do no affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety."
Considering the observation of our Hon'ble Apex Court with the case in our hand, this Court is also in a position to hold that the minor contradiction available in the evidence given by the witnesses do not affect the case of the prosecution. Thereby, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not the ground for disbelieving the case of the prosecution.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in lodging the complaint justifies setting aside the conviction.
Whether the lack of recovery of material object and defective investigation warrants acquittal.
Whether the sentence of seven years is excessive given the mitigating circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
(2011) 6 SCC 279 - A.Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka · Who else cites this
R. Thiyagu
The State represented by The Inspector of Police, B5, Singanallur Police Station, Coimbatore District
R. Pongiappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
R. Pongiappan
Parties & counsel
